IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [lisp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7052 (4256)

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 06 February 2015 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lisp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1C211A1BDA for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 07:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHrbiIxEt5Qj for <lisp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 07:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F28F1A1BB0 for <lisp@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 07:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AD2388126; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 07:44:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.local (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3B113682A3; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 07:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54D4E142.6020409@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 10:44:02 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Isidoros Kouvelas (kouvelas)" <kouvelas@cisco.com>
References: <20150204092419.B7DE3180092@rfc-editor.org> <54D4C0BB.3030906@innovationslab.net> <EDF4C663-E6D0-4D93-8117-203538C20C83@cisco.com> <54D4D87E.7060807@innovationslab.net> <F412925B-8EA0-414E-AC9B-263F51715059@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <F412925B-8EA0-414E-AC9B-263F51715059@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="s9Tt6vpDcuUpo0JB4waJthO7h1RjIMGT4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lisp/MD_WFNIZBAC6V7cSYGxtlFQHooA>
Cc: "lisp@ietf.org" <lisp@ietf.org>, "ted.lemon@nominum.com" <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [lisp] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7052 (4256)
X-BeenThere: lisp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: List for the discussion of the Locator/ID Separation Protocol <lisp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/lisp/>
List-Post: <mailto:lisp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp>, <mailto:lisp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:44:22 -0000

Isidor,

On 2/6/15 10:19 AM, Isidoros Kouvelas (kouvelas) wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> I am not sure what the minimum length of 5 could correspond to given
> the minimum length of an IPv4 address will be 8 octets (including two
> for AFI, one for the internal length field and one for the mask
> length). So I would be interested in the discussion context you refer
> to.

It turns out that the discussion during review was with the upper limit.
I can't find any reference to discussions on the lower limit.  Authors?

> 
> Regarding the unspecified address specification I think that making
> it explicit (zero length) would be cleaner than encoding a special
> address. To limit the number of changes to the MIB we could only fix
> the LispAddressType octet string definition as well as
> lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength.
> 
> Regarding the example below, the normal case is that all EID prefixes
> are configured on the Map-Server and then registered by the xTRs.
> Reporting the MS as the RegisterSender of the EID prefixes that have
> not been registered would not work.

So, is your suggestion to change the lower limit on the TC and the lower
limit for just the lispEidRegistrationLastRegisterSenderLength?

I would still like some input from others in the WG on this issue.

Regards,
Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email